Karl Zemanek

New Trends in the Enforcement of erga omnes Obligations

I. The Emergence of erga omnes Obligations 1. Human Rights Under the UN Charter a. The Programme b. The Implementation 2. The Establishment of erga, omnes obligations in Other fields a. Conventional Creation b. Jus cogens 3. Ensuring Compliance with erga omnes Obligations a. The Growing Awareness of their Different Character b. The Tortuous Implementation of the Idea in Practice II. Can the Existing Community Mechanisms Ensure Enforcement? 1. The Conceptual Question 2. The Relevant Functions of International Organs a. Reporting Systems b. Inspection, Verification and Investigation Systems c. Complaints Procedures d. (Limited) Non-Violent Sanctions 3. Conclusions III. Individual Criminal Responsibility 1. The Evolution of the Concept a. The Way to Nuremberg, Tokyo and Other Prosecutions after World War II b. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols 2. The influence of the International Criminal Tribunals Established by the Security Council a. Jurisdictional Innovation b. The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Tribunals 3. The International Criminal Court (ICC) a. Jurisdiction and its Implementation b. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Publisher Summary This chapter discusses general principle of responsibility of states. Responsibility of States means that an internationally wrongful act, committed by one State against another, entails certain consequences for its author in the form of new obligations toward the victim. An act is considered internationally wrongful if its author violates an obligation which custom or treaty establishes in favor of another specific State; in that case the author is internationally responsible to the victim and to the victim alone. In its present endeavor to codify the rules of State responsibility, the International Law Commission (ILC) is attempting to determine which duties toward the international community as a whole are so essential for the latters orderly functioning that their violation would qualify as an international crime affecting all States and would create new rights and obligations for all of them. The duty to repair material damage is known as “liability.” Because this duty is also one of the consequences of State responsibility, the term liability may be and is occasionally used in this respect synonymously with responsibility.

Neutral Austria in the United Nations

The permanent neutrality of Austria is not rooted in ancient traditions as is its model, the permanent neutrality of Switzerland. It was established as late as 1955 and may, therefore, give rise to the question of why, in an age of collective self-defense, such a seemingly outdated decision was taken.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, TREATY-MAKING POWER

This chapter reviews the treaty-making power of international organizations. Since the proliferation of international organizations beginning at the end of World War II, more than 2000 treaties to which international organizations are parties have been published in the United Nations Treaty Series. From a factual point of view, there is, therefore, no doubt that international organizations have the capacity to conclude international agreements. At the outset, however, that capacity was by no means legally certain because the constituent instruments of international organizations rarely confer such power expressly on the organization. Normally, treaty-making is either not dealt with at all or the organization is simply authorized to conclude a given agreement. In such cases, the capacity of the organization to conclude treaties must be inferred, either from general international law or from the functions and powers of the organization. Thus, the question is usually linked to the international legal personality of international organizations.

MERCHANT SHIPS, ARMED

This chapter describes the concept of armed merchant ships. Merchant ship is a lawful aim in sea warfare and belligerents, depending on uninterrupted maritime transport for their existence, will try to protect such transport by any necessary means, including the arming of merchant ships. By simply being armed, a merchant ship is not transformed into an auxiliary cruiser; it retains prima facie its non-combatant status. Merchant ships had no legal duty to submit to visit and search by enemy warships because these are steps towards capture, and capture of enemy merchantmen is not a right but a hostile act. Until the end of the Napoleonic wars, merchantmen were primarily armed against pirates and privateers. Thereafter two developments converged, firstly, privatizing was abandoned and piracy suppressed. Secondly, the improvement in both offensive armament and defensive armor-plating gave surface warships such overwhelming military power that a rule could develop which protected merchant ships from attack without warning. As a result, the arming of merchant ships gradually fell into disuse without ever being formally abolished.